On Monday 05 August 2013 11:38 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:29:46AM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> So looks like I am bit confused here. The current memblock_alloc()
>> API just returns the physical address which not mapped memory.
>
> The memory returned by me
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:29:46AM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> So looks like I am bit confused here. The current memblock_alloc()
> API just returns the physical address which not mapped memory.
The memory returned by memblock is mapped if the memory area being
allocated can be mappa
On Monday 05 August 2013 11:01 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:06:02PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Looking at the situation, how about proceeding with patch updating
>> the bootmem API signatures to use phys_addr_t which can unblock me
>> to get my machine work
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:06:02PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Looking at the situation, how about proceeding with patch updating
> the bootmem API signatures to use phys_addr_t which can unblock me
> to get my machine working.
I'm not sure about that. No matter how you play it, it
Tejun,
On Thursday 25 July 2013 11:08 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 07:15:11PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I need help to at least have new
>> memblock API support since I am not familiar with memblock code.
>> I could help i
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 07:15:11PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Sorry if I wasn't clear before, but I need help to at least have new
> memblock API support since I am not familiar with memblock code.
> I could help in adaptation to the new API for ARM arch and
> core kernel code.
>
>
On Thursday 25 July 2013 06:36 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:33:14PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Any comments here. I would like to know your plan for the new
>> API. You might have seen on the ARM no-bootmem thread, we started to
>> move ARM to nobootmem with
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 06:33:14PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Any comments here. I would like to know your plan for the new
> API. You might have seen on the ARM no-bootmem thread, we started to
> move ARM to nobootmem with Russell's help.
Ooh, the plan sounds good to me and I was t
Tejun,
On Monday 01 July 2013 10:10 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Saturday 29 June 2013 04:08 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On these SoCs which Santosh is wor
On Saturday 29 June 2013 04:08 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On these SoCs which Santosh is working on, the main physical memory
> mapping is above 4GB, with just
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> >> On these SoCs which Santosh is working on, the main physical memory
>> >> mapping is above 4GB, with just a small alias below 4GB to allow the
>> >> system to boot
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:29:55PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > ( Expanding cc list, original thread is at
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1518046 )
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Russell King -
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> ( Expanding cc list, original thread is at
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1518046 )
>
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> Unfortunately, that has not been true on ARM - it's v
3 makes sense to me.
Tejun Heo wrote:
>( Expanding cc list, original thread is at
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1518046 )
>
>Hello,
>
>On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux
>wrote:
>> Unfortunately, that has not been true on ARM - it's very common for
( Expanding cc list, original thread is at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1518046 )
Hello,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 06:21:24PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Unfortunately, that has not been true on ARM - it's very common for
> there to be an offset on physical memory, some
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:29:59AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I suppose LPAE on arm is analogous to PAE on x86, IOW, high memory?
> This does affect memory initilization as you need to register memory
> areas which aren't addressable directly; however, why does it affect
> generic code which is just
Hello,
I haven't looked at bootmem for a while so could be a bit out of touch
but a couple questions.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:01:03PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> - Started replacing bootmem_* usage with dirty hacked memblock based API.
> This can be letter wrapped with only needed parame
17 matches
Mail list logo
